Category: living in sin

There are four levels of sin in the Bible. There are “fish on Fridays” sins that are completely made up; “shave and dress” sins that are so old-testament that nobody follows them anymore. There are “ten commandments” sins that are a little more poignant; finally there is “the Golden Rule.”

As a reference, it is laid out in the New testament: “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Romans 13:9

The reason why this is relevant is because the Leviticus admonishments against gay people fall into category I or II depending on how you translate the Bible. But the sin of denying somebody marriage when you accept it for yourself is a grievous violation of the highest level: the Golden Rule.

No self-respecting Christian can lie about “perversion”, encourage others into adultery, turn others away from God, stoke teen suicides and deny equal rights to their neighbors, and then expect to uphold this Golden Rule thingie. And that is why any who argue this into public policy is morally bankrupt, and why those who understand that marriage and faith actually depend on acceptance of all God’s people fairly and equally, is the only argument that is Constitutional, American and Christian.

I have a sad tale to share with you from my mail bag, sad because it shows a glimpse of the worst of people. A “foamer” (a.k.a. a rabid irrational Opponent of Equality) wrote to me about my explanation of how Ruth and Naomi provide the best example of love in all of the Old Testament, perhaps a quote you paraphrased at your own wedding: “And Ruth said [to Naomi], Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: …Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” Ruth 1:16-17

YouTuber “LenaLena” wrote me to say “That is extremely disgusting. How dare you twist the story of Ruth and Boaz around?! Ruth fell in love with Boaz. There is no way that the bible supports homosexuality in anyway. Actually, the bible is very clear on where God stands with homosexuality.”

What is so sad and frustrating about this is that the foamers don’t read the Bible they are using as a weapon against their neighbors. I am really tired and frustrated of being treated as less than human by a Church and a Government that is seemingly beholden to these people. Anybody who reads the Bible can see in an instant that Ruth’s relationship was with Naomi, not Boaz. And God blesses committed same-sex relationships with abundance:

Ruth 4:17 “And the women her neighbors gave [Ruth’s baby] a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.” And we all know where the House of David leads.

Everybody ought to be able to follow their own personal belief on this – but I wish you would not let the foamers make public policy while my beliefs are trampled by falsehoods and lies.

Your public policy on gay marriage hinges on a condemnation of gay sex, which of course comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The story goes that God destroyed the two cities because of the immoralities of the residents, and because the writings of some Dark Ages monks, “the sin of Sodomy” has become synonymous with any sexual liaison that is not stick+hole=baby.

Unfortunately for that policy, anybody who reads the Bible with more attention than they pay to the Sudoku puzzle in their Sunday paper knows that God’s destruction of the city (Genesis 18:20) has nothing to do with the part where the men attempt to rape the angels (Genesis 19:9), which was merely an act of barbaric punishment by rape – not homosexuality.

Ezekiel 16 lists the many sins of these people – and homosexuality is not one of them.

“”Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49 (American Standard)

In 2003 the United States Supreme Court invalidated Sodomy laws as being an unconstitutional violation of privacy. In 2005 and 2007 the California Legislature sought to invalidate the special exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage as an unconstitutional violation of religious tolerance, privacy and freedom. You sided with the sodophyles and vetoed those bills.

When you have abundant food and careless ease, the least you could do is help same-sex couples achieve the access to same laws and opportunities as everybody else. It is too late for you to sign AB 43, but it is not too late for you to support the freedom to marry.

I’m just a guy who is trying to be the best husband and father that I can, and I’m willing to work hard for a better world. As a gay man who believes in God and the tradition of getting married, I’m really getting beaten up today, and although I already have God on my side, I could sure use your help too.

Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts, expressed his organization’s religious beliefs: “Since we were founded, we believe that open homosexuality would be inconsistent with the values that we want to communicate with our leaders.”

Mr. Shields explained a bit more though, saying “A belief in God is also mentioned in the Scout oath. We believe that those values are important. Tradition is important. Our mission is to instill those values in scouts and help them make good choices over their lifetimes.”

It is no accident that Mr. Shields links homosexuals to people who don’t believe in God and don’t follow tradition. It is probably what he was taught. But anybody with the brains God gave geese knows that this is a lie.

I am living proof that homosexuals can and do believe in God and want to follow tradition, perhaps more than anybody – I not only want to carry on my family’s tradition by getting married and sending my kids to Scout Camp, but I also want to achieve that without lying about myself or my family. That’s what the Scout oath is really about.

When Mr. Shields uses lies to separate my family from God, he is also separating my family from Freedom. Mitt Romney pointed out today that “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

I just don’t have the same muscle as The Boy Scouts, The Mormon Church or The State of California. That’s why I need your help to set things straight. I wish you would support the freedom of families like mine to follow their beliefs and traditions. I wish you would support the freedom to marry.

Last night a friend of mine made an interesting observation. He pointed out that traditionally, marriage has been about ‘sameness.’ Same religion, same interests, same city, same house, same race, same bed.

Why would it be so strange to also have the same sex? Wearing each others’ clothes is no longer ‘weird’ but rather efficient. Being able to use the same locker room at the gym is quite practical. Not having to worry about putting the toilet seat down is quite a peacemaker too.

They say that the exception proves the rule. Just like there are exceptions to sameness, there are exceptions to differences. Please, support the freedom for same-sex couples to make the same commitment of marriage that same-religion, same-location, same-interests, same-house, same-bed, same-race couples can – and do – make every day. Please support the freedom to marry.

I want to get married, but I’m running into more and more people who just want to “shack up” without making that commitment. I am starting to think that the decline of marriage might be inspired by the many same-sex couples who have been forced to build their families without the safety and security of marriage, yet have done so with such success.

Many of our friends ask me and my permanent boyfriend for marital advice, which we happily supply, but I actually felt a bit guilty last week when a friend of mine from high school told me that he and his girlfriend decided to merely live together because of how well my ten-year relationship works without marriage.

Even public couples such as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie cite gay relationships as reasons for not getting married. It’s so popular that Senator Carol Migden introduced a bill that would give California couples the rights of marriage without the responsibilities. She calls it “Domestic Partnership.”

If you believe that couples in a relationship should get married instead of “living in sin” then you should sign AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and change the gold standard for successful relationships from “domestic partnerships” to marriages.

I’ve written to you in the past about AB 43 which would allow same-sex couples to choose between marriage and Domestic Partnership, but today I want to write to you about a reciprocal bill – SB 11 – which would give all opposite-sex couples the option to choose Domestic Partnership instead of marriage.

I actually agree with Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) and an infamous Opponent of Equality, who said “Awarding marriage rights to people who shack up but refuse to get married is completely ridiculous. Why get married if you can get all the legal rights and benefits of marriage without being committed? This bad bill severely weakens the institution of marriage and will motivate unwed parents to remain uncommitted.”

SB 11 is a reciprocal bill to AB 43, and the reciprocal truth applies: why ban people who are “shacking up” from the commitment of marriage? Why would you motivate (or force) unwed parents to remain uncommitted? Just as SB 11 weakens marriage, AB 43 strengthens it by allowing committed couples to commit to each other.

My California Domestic Partner and I have been “shacked up” and “uncommitted” for way too long. I wish you would let us access the safety and security of marriage just like everybody else: please sign AB 43.